I answered this private message from Jeff thinking it was to the list, then checked with him and he said he'd intended it to go to the list ... so here it is.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com Date: 18-Apr-2007 16:03 Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Major dysfunction in RfA Culture To: jeff.raymond
On 18/04/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
As you would have noticed if you'd read above, oppose voters need a decent justification for opposing, as candidates are assumed not dangerous unless opposed with a decent reason. So the cases are not symmetrical. If that wasn't the point of your question, please clarify at greater length.
The question is why don't support voters need a decent justification for supporting?
That would be the question I just answered.
Why not require support voters to demonstrate trust instead of only assuming the good faith of those supporting the candidate?
Because adminship is No Big Deal. Anyone who's been around a while and won't actually damage the wiki with the tools should have them.
As such, "support" votes are presumed to echo the nominator; "oppose" votes need a reason.
The bar at RFA is stupidly high and we should have three times the number of admins we do now, at least. That you didn't pass is completely stupid of RFA, for example.
- d.
Is the beuracrats are supposed to do the will of the people and respect consensus, couldn't the people just tell them to promote people at a different ballpark ratio?
If consensus is that anyone with say 65% should be an admin, wouldn't they have to respect that? If not, couldn't we just get rid of them?
On 4/18/07, Info Control infodmz@gmail.com wrote:
Is the beuracrats are supposed to do the will of the people and respect consensus, couldn't the people just tell them to promote people at a different ballpark ratio?
Experience suggests they would certainly take such statements into consideration. You could always ask them.
If consensus is that anyone with say 65% should be an admin, wouldn't they have to respect that? If not, couldn't we just get rid of them?
There is no direct method for removing crats short of arbcom. Indirectly you could try getting someone elected who would say that they would promote at 65% but the odds of doing so are minimal since you would like get an unholy alliance of the "Bureaucrats should not be bots" and "bureaucrats should not promote below 75%" against you.
Info Control wrote:
If consensus is that anyone with say 65% should be an admin, wouldn't they have to respect that? If not, couldn't we just get rid of them?
That would still be a percentage of votes. That would not answer the real problems.
Ec